quantum of interest in a contract

In absence of an explicit clause on quantum of interest in a contract, compound interest cannot be awarded: Delhi High Court

In the case of M/s. Modi Construction Company vs. Ircon International Limited[1], the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi (“the Court”) while dealing with appeal filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Assignee can invoke arbitration clause Bombay High Court

Assignee, having stepped into the shoes of the assignor, can invoke arbitration clause: Bombay High Court.

In a recent order,in the matter of M/s. Siemens Factoring Private Limited v. Future Enterprises Private Limited[1]the Hon’ble Bombay High Court (“the Court”) held that an assignee, though not a party but having stepped into

Arbitrators fees Under The Fourth Schedule Of A and C Act

Supreme Court Clarifies The Law On Payment Of Fees To Arbitrators

The Hon’ble Supreme Court (the SC) in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Afcons Gunanusa JV[1] settled law on applicability of the Fourth Schedule (“the Schedule”) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the

Supreme Court | Borrower Has To Pre-Deposit 50% Of The “Debt Due” In Appeal Under Section 18 Of The Sarfaesi Act Before DRAT

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna in M/s Sidha Neelkanth Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V Prudent ARC Limited & Ors vide judgement dated 05.01.2023 observed that the

Delhi High Court reiterates its findings on what constitutes non est filing for the purposes of calculating period of limitation.

Introduction The High Court of Delhi, in a recent judgement re-iterated the concept of non-est filing in Ambrosia Corner House Private Limited V. Hangro S Foods1. The Court laid out instances that would constitute non-est

Bombay High Court

Once the reference under MSMED Act is filed, it would override invocation of arbitration by other party: Bombay High court

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in a recent order passed on 24th January 2023 has ruled that the ongoing dispute filed under the provision of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (“MSMED Act,

1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 77